The recent unseemly spat in the National Workers' Union between Mr. Clive Dobson and those wanting to succeed him as president speaks volumes about that organisation and Mr. Dobson's own leadership. Nothing it says is inspiring.

Mr. Dobson is 71. He has been president of the NWU for 15 years. He has been ill, on and off, but more on than off, for much of the second half of his tenure. For the last several months Mr. Dobson has been mostly out of the office.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there are younger members of the NWU who harbour aspirations to lead the union, hoping that Mr. Dobson would pack up and go. Although they may not be willing as yet to push Mr. Dobson, clearly Mr. Danny Roberts and Mr. Vincent Morrison want the job when he leaves.

Their problem, however, is that Mr. Dobson is not ready to leave, perhaps because he loves his job or he fears there will be a knock-down-drag-out fight between the contenders if he leaves. His solution to the problem was to extract a promise from Messrs. Roberts and Morrison that they would not challenge him at the NWU biennial conference in September if he decides to seek re-election.

Withdraw from the race

Mr. Dobson has decided to seek re-election, but Mr. Roberts' and Mr. Morrison's names remained on nomination documents, although Mr. Roberts has since said that he will honour his undertaking and withdraw from the race if Mr. Morrison does the same. He believes that as vice-president and island supervisor, too much power is concentrated in the hands of Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Dobson sees the whole episode as betrayal and back-stabbing by his deputies. We see it as ineptitude, symptomatic of the stage of Jamaica's trade union movement and its failure to adjust to modern circumstances. Indeed, it can't say much for succession planning on the part of Mr. Dobson that after 15 years at the helm no one emerged as either his natural successor or as the clear front-runner for the job. It says even less about the NWU's capacity for resolving conflicts and Mr. Dobson's own skill at dispute resolution.

Here was a leader who perceived a challenge that was counter to the specific undertaking of his assumed protagonists. Mr. Dobson's response as a senior and seasoned trade unionist and leader of the organisation was not to attempt to resolve the issue within the councils of the NWU. Rather, he engaged in a juvenile outburst against those who mount a democratic challenge to his leadership. His action was no less puerile than the approach of his would-be challengers.

But we, perhaps, expect too much of a trade union movement that, for the most part, remains locked in 19th-century certitudes, unable, or unwilling to adjust to the globalised realities of a 21st century world. Forward movements, like social contract negotiations and MoUs on wage restraint, have been quarter steps that are often countered by huge backward lunges. Current labour tensions in Jamaica, some with an undercurrent of politics, highlight the point.

Maybe it is time for Mr. Dobson to let go, leave the delegates of the NWU to their will and the union to find its place. It may just land somewhere in the late 20th century.